He breaks out of this recent silence in a commentary that appears in the February 21 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

A synopsis of Thompson’s message:

“For Milwaukee Public Schools, the financial crisis that many of us have been warning about is here. As principals get their initial budgets [for 2010-11], they are faced with cutting teachers; larger class sizes; the loss of specialty teachers such as those in art, music, physical education; and the loss of librarians….[M]uch of the MPS pain is self-inflicted. Next year, MPS is facing a 77% fringe benefit rate, meaning that the cost to the district of an employee is 77% more than that employee’s pay. If the unfunded liability for retiree benefits were correctly included, the fringe benefit rate would rise to almost 104%…”

What makes Thompson’s analysis significant is that it could be applied to a substantial number of public school districts today—urban and rural.  More and more, school officials are looking at the numbers and realizing they don’t add up.  More and more, the consequences of collective bargaining are beginning to be felt.

Issues such as grabbing Race to the Top money continue to command a disproportionate share of attention from the education media and other observers.  But these are nothing compared to the approaching fiscal train wreck in public education.

The lead paragraph clearly captures the potential significance:

“Wisconsin’s superintendent of public instruction took the first step Thursday toward withholding up to $175 million in federal funds from Milwaukee Public Schools because of the district’s failure to meet yearly academic progress targets required under law.”

Is there a precedent for this in other states?

As the story makes clear, several steps in this process still must play out.

As President, his acquiescence to the death of the D.C. Scholarship Program — despite well-documented, positive findings from Patrick Wolf’s team — is a reminder that actions speak louder than words.

So perhaps it’s naïve to put too much stock in these words from last week’s State of the Union address:  “The idea here is simple. Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform that raises student achievement.”

Yet, hope springs eternal.  As with other policies where the President now is reconsidering his approach, perhaps he and Education Secretary Arne Duncan will take a second look at the power of parent choice.

New data from Milwaukee gives them a chance to do that.  It provides yet another piece of evidence suggesting that urban students benefit when afforded more educational options.  It comes from University of Minnesota Sociology Professor John Robert Warren, an acknowledged national expert on high school graduation rates.

After studying six years of data from Milwaukee, Warren concludes, in a new study reported here, “Students in the Milwaukee choice program are more likely to graduate from high school than” students in the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS).   This despite the fact that eligibility for Milwaukee vouchers is limited to students from low-income families while “students in MPS schools come from a much broader range of social and economic backgrounds.”

Professor Warren’s report, available here, says that Milwaukee students using vouchers were 18 per cent more likely to graduate than MPS students.  He estimates that 3,352 additional Milwaukee students would have received diplomas between 2003 and 2008 if public school graduation rates had matched those of low-income students using educational vouchers.

As for causation, Warren notes that a separate longitudinal evaluation of the Milwaukee program, being directed by Pat Wolf, will address that issue.

The preview of the event says that the report “argues that parents should be afforded the maximum degree of choice.”  So far, so good.  More intriguing, however, is news that the report will discuss “how to expand school choice to increase equity and create a market within the public sector for school quality.”  The emphasis is mine, highlighting three phrases that will tell much about how meaningful this report will be.  

“Increase equity.” What education reform proposal worth its rhetorical salt does not envision more “equity”?  How the authors define that term will tell all.  As I see it, in the school choice arena equity is about eliminating disparities in the access that parents have to educational options.  As we all know, “equity” is often merely a cover for proposals that serve entrenched educational interests.

A “market within the public sector.” If public sector means public schools, the scope of the report will be limited, perhaps fatally so.  On the other hand, parental choice of schools supported with public dollars would provide a more promising framework.  

“School quality.” I have observed in the last year the beginning steps, in the name of school quality, to dismantle the 20-year old Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.  Many of those involved in this process want to “increase equity” and believe the focus of K-12 reform efforts should be confined to the “public sector.”

Given the expertise and background of the panelists who will present next week, how they define equity, the public sector, and school quality will be quite significant.

More than 100,000 online viewers have seen the music video, the subject of a seven-minute feature earlier this month on CNN.

When not celebrating the success of this project, the Hope Schools are changing the lives of central city students in Milwaukee as part of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.

They also are coping with six-figure state budget cuts and a new wave of regulation, the result of action in 2009 by the Wisconsin Legislature and Governor.  While the state’s supposed goal was more “accountability,” in reality this represents a big step for voucher opponents in bringing the program to its knees.   They used a shotgun approach that adversely affects some of the city’s best schools.  The new funding and regulatory regime is a fundamental change from the more targeted approach that the state had been using to remove ineffective schools from the program.

Bret Schundler is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s choice to be that state’s Education Commissioner.  Meanwhile, Gerard Robinson was nominated for a similar position in Virginia by that state’s new governor, Bob McConnell.

While the backgrounds of Schundler and Robinson vary substantially, they share a strong belief in the importance of expanding educational options for parents.  In other words, school choice.  Even more specifically, vouchers.  Their support of school choice reflects a broader set of beliefs rooted in the need for actual change.

The test now is whether they and the governors who appointed them can run the legislative gauntlet in each state to produce something more than a watered-down set of “pilot” programs that don’t really move the bar.  Until now, opponents of meaningful reform largely have been successful in containing voucher and meaningful charter programs to limited geographical areas.  Teacher unions and their legislative allies also have seen to it that these programs are financed at a fraction of the per-pupil spending received by traditional public schools.  Further, as occurred last year in Wisconsin, when opponents of school reform control the executive and legislative branches, initiatives such as Milwaukee’s voucher program encounter the double-whammy of less funding and a public school regulatory model.

Finally, of course, there is the experience at the federal level, where a supposedly reform oriented President and Education Secretary raised no protest as Congress killed the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program

Schundler and Robinson both will have their eyes wide open as they tackle these new assignments.  They’ve heard all the arguments and know the kind of hardball politics that will be played by teachers unions.  What will matter a great deal is how much political capital their bosses are willing to spend to start down the road to real reform.  Governors have considerable power.  It is not a limitless resource.  They have to decide how and when to use it.

Back to Wisconsin, for a moment.  That state’s legislative and gubernatorial elections this year hold great significance for Milwaukee’s school choice program and for the future of meaningful reform in the Badger State.  There are candidates who share the Christie and McConnell commitment to reform based on markets, choice, and real accountability.  There are others who will be content to preside over the steady and inevitable decline of the Milwaukee program that is now underway.

Wisconsin appears to be a prime candidate for feedback.

President Obama used a speech in Madison last November to describe the RTTT framework. Prior to his trip a White House spokesman said Wisconsin was chosen as the venue because the state was considering the kind of “positive” actions that fit the President’s criteria.

In the subsequent two months the Legislature failed to enact key measures outlined by Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. These included a plan to transfer control of the Milwaukee Public Schools to the city’s mayor and a proposal to strengthen the hand of the state’s superintendent of public instruction. At a special legislative session called by Doyle in December neither measure even came up for a vote. A daylong public hearing on the measured was held on January 5 and is described here.

On January 6 Doyle acknowledged the obvious fact that neither proposal is going anywhere, at least in the near future. As described in this report, the state will seek $254 million in RTTT money without referencing the mayoral takeover. Noteworthy in the article is the following: “The school districts received a letter Wednesday from the state laying out the requirements. About 100 school districts immediately committed to the requirements, and state School Superintendent Tony Evers said he expected virtually all districts to do so by the deadline.” A copy of the “requirements” was not immediately available, though the article mentions that schools would be required to set “higher standards and creat[e] teacher mentoring programs.”

Previously, the state had enacted a tepid set of measures touted as being designed to help the RTTT cause. They are described here. The most notable, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, is “a bill Monday allowing teachers to be evaluated – but not disciplined or dismissed – based on student performance.”

It will be interesting to see what kind of “feedback” Wisconsin gets.

One especially bullish view comes from Democrats for Education Reform.  Describing RTTT activity in a number of states, DFER allows that it is “stunned” by the “tremendous wave of edu-political reform which has been unleashed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan and the Obama administration in such a short time.”

An alternative view — mine — is more skeptical.

Let’s consider who the players are.

At the state level, education bureaucrats, who have presided over decades of K-12 malaise, are preparing RTTT applications.  These applications will reflect a flurry of action by legislators and governors, most of whom emerged in the last year from a long spell of educational policy hibernation or indifference.  Suddenly, they are brimming with bold ideas and are eager to tell Education Secretary Arne Duncan what they think he wants to hear.

And at the federal level there is a cadre of political appointees and civil servants in the Department of Education who have just watched Duncan and President Obama stand idly by as Congress buried the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.  This largely anonymous group will be scrutinizing the mountain of paper about to descend on the department.  They will be submitting recommendations to Duncan as to which states deserve a share of the $4 billion RTTT pot.

Is it too cynical to suggest that this is a process destined to produce a low-risk menu, one wrapped in the tired rhetoric of reform that is a staple of American public education?  Where in this process are the charter school innovators that much of the educational establishment wants to shut down or contain?  Where are the private school operators with a track record of real results?  And, most importantly, given the broader political climate, will Duncan and Obama be willing to push any items that rankle the National Education Association?

Finally, where is there evidence that one-time federal grants are the missing ingredient?  As Professor James Guthrie describes in “The Phony Funding Crisis,” from the most recent issue of Ed Next, public education has been on the receiving end of substantial resources over a period of decades.

For RTTT to work, we need to accept that Arne Duncan is singularly able to apply an extra few billion dollars in a surgical way that will change the game.  We need to believe that the absence of someone such as Duncan — and a one-time infusion of money — constitute the missing ingredients.

Incidentally, as I will describe in a separate post, Wisconsin’s chances for RTTT money continue to plummet.  So much for the President’s visit to Madison in November and the advance word from the White House that Wisconsin was planning bold changes.

Over the weekend the Democrat-controlled Congress put the final nail in the coffin of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.  Though students now in the program may continue, new students will not be admitted. This despite positive research described here by Patrick Wolf.  President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan made it clear they had no problem with winding down the program.

Earlier this year, Wisconsin’s Democratic Governor and Legislature reduced the already meager funding for the 20-year old Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.  Taxpayer support for private schools in the program is $6,442 per student; public schools in Milwaukee receive $13,818.  Wisconsin also imposed a public school-style regulatory regime that will take effect in 2010-11.  Private schools in the Milwaukee voucher program are starting to take stock of the double-whammy:  higher costs to comply with new regulations at the same time that their financial support is declining.

These developments followed 2008 elections in which Democrats took control of executive and legislative branches in Wisconsin and at the national level.  While some in the party have expressed support for school choice, the predominant view is hostile.  The unrivaled political support from teacher unions, described here by Paul Peterson, is a major factor.

If voucher programs are endangered, some have suggested that “charters” are the way to go.  But of course charters come in many forms.  Will the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers view non-union charter schools any differently than private schools?

In the end, elections matter.  As such, 2010 looms large for those who support expanding parent education options.

Chavous, a former Democratic member of the D.C. Council, and Williams, a former Democratic mayor of D.C., say it’s time for the President to weigh in.  Yet, a case could be made that he has.  One must assume that Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s frequent comments about the program’s future have been cleared with the White House.

Indeed, as Williams and Chavous explain:

Despite the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program’s five-year record of success in helping children from low-income D.C. families attend the best schools they have ever known, President Obama, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. José E. Serrano (D-N.Y.) are threatening to end it. Officially, the three have coalesced around a position that would allow current participants to remain in the program but not let in any new ones, including 216 who received acceptance letters in the spring.

Plain and simple, the position of Obama, Durbin and Serrano is to let the program die. Continued funding for only current participants would deny entry to their siblings, as well as to those children of low-income parents stuck in or slated to go to the worst-performing D.C. schools. It would harm the congressionally mandated evaluation of the program by gradually cutting the number of participating children, and it would require the District to absorb the cost of accommodating children who would otherwise be in the program.

The raw political calculus does not favor the D.C. program.  For Obama to save it would anger key legislative allies that he needs on other issues.  It would displease the teachers unions, whose help will be important in the 2010 elections.

Meanwhile, the President’s children are likely to maintain their educational options.

A substantial academic achievement gap exists between well-defined groups of American students.  In addition, international comparisons show that there is a notable gap between the academic achievement of American students and students in many other countries.  From an overall fund of $4.5 billion, the Department of Education will award grants to individuals, organizations, schools (public or private) and colleges and universities who demonstrate they can do something to close those gaps.  Depending on the quality of applications, the Department might award less than $4.5 billion.

There would be forms to fill out.  Successful applicants would be subject to audit requirements.  Evaluations would be needed to assess results.  Most importantly, the Secretary of Education would need great discretion in making awards.  He should not be constrained by a scheme that personifies the stifling bureaucratic process for which American education is noteworthy.  Unfortunately, an argument can be made that Arne Duncan has fallen prey to just such a system.

Consider the voluminous RTTT information posted here.  On reviewing it, one could be excused for thinking that the editors of The Onion have hacked into the Education Department’s website.

What most stands out is the palpable disconnect between the RTTT process and what actually occurs in the many charter schools and private schools that have made real progress.   If a random selection of administrators at such schools were asked to review the process, the response likely would be a collective laugh.

For example, describing a change to the original RTTT application, the department explains, “The term persistently lowest performing schools has been changed to persistently lowest-achieving schools.” Thankfully, that’s been clarified.  Elsewhere, the department explains that the definitions of “rapid-time” and “student achievement” have been modified. Whew.

While that might seem like nit-picking, arcane bureaucratic definitions are central to the RTTT process.  Among the 100+ pages of instructions and guidelines — part of the RTTT application states must submit — nearly five pages are devoted to definitions.

Meaningless nuance rules.  There are “effective” teachers and principals and then there are “highly effective” teachers and principals.  There are “high-need” LEAs, not to be confused with “involved” LEAs or “participating” LEAs.  And on and on.

Then there are “assurances” required of applicants.

One of several:

The State will comply with all applicable assurances in OMB Standard Forms 424B (Assurances for Non-Construction Programs) and to the extent consistent with the State’s application, OMB Standard Form 424D (Assurances for Construction Programs), including the assurances relating to the legal authority to apply for assistance; access to records; conflict of interest; merit systems; nondiscrimination; Hatch Act provisions; labor standards; flood hazards; historic preservation; protection of human subjects; animal welfare; lead-based paint; Single Audit Act; and the general agreement to comply with all applicable Federal laws, executive orders and regulations.

And this:

The State will comply with all of the operational and administrative provisions in Title XV and XIV of the ARRA, including Buy American Requirements (ARRA Division A, Section 1605), Wage Rate Requirements (section 1606), and any applicable environmental impact requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) (ARRA Division A, Section 1609).  In using ARRA funds for infrastructure investment, recipients will comply with the requirement regarding Preferences for Quick Start Activities (ARRA Division A, Section 1602).

Or how about this?

The State and other entities will comply with the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), including the following provisions as applicable:  34 CFR Part 74–Administration of Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; 34 CFR Part 75–Direct Grant Programs; 34 CFR Part 77– Definitions that Apply to Department Regulations; 34 CFR Part 80– Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, including the procurement provisions; 34 CFR Part 81– General Education Provisions Act­–Enforcement; 34 CFR Part 82– New Restrictions on Lobbying; 34 CFR Part 84–Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance); 34 CFR Part 85–Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement).

“[N]o honeymoon lasts forever,” opined the New York Times recently.  Its editorial, headlined “The ‘Highly Qualified Teacher Dodge’,” suggested that recently issued RTTT guidelines amounted to a cave-in by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

The Times did not go far enough.  It’s simply not possible to sort through the RTTT morass and conclude that anything positive will result, except by chance.

The latest news:

With teacher union representatives at his side, Governor Jim Doyle signed a package of bills that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said improve “Wisconsin’s chances of landing a share of $4.35 billion in federal Race to the Top funds.”  The paper apparently reached that conclusion because a White House spokesman cited “positive” developments in Wisconsin prior to President Obama’s visit.  The central piece of legislation signed by Doyle is one “allowing teachers to be evaluated – but not disciplined or dismissed – based on student performance.”  The bill was drafted with input from the Wisconsin affiliate of the National Education Association.  Arguably, it achieves no real change.

Doyle’s goal of a mayoral takeover of the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) — a step he says is key to getting RTTT money — is on life support.   Milwaukee’s legislative delegation is sharply divided on the plan.  Further, teacher union opposition, and concerns expressed by key non-Milwaukee legislators, make legislative approval unlikely.   And now there is the decision by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett that he will seek to replace the outgoing Doyle in the 2010 elections; the effect is to greatly undermine the argument the he should be given control of MPS.

Finally, teacher unions and Milwaukee legislative opponents of a mayoral takeover have put forth an alternative.  As one might expect, this plan, not yet in bill form, offers no promise of actual reform.

Out of all this the state is supposed to piece together a persuasive application for RTTT funds?

Last week Rocketship Mateo Sheedy was the subject of a post at the blog of Joanne Jacobs, a freelance education writer.  One (of twenty-three) comments asked about teacher salaries at the school.  Another doubted that the budget was as low as I had claimed.

In response to a request, the school provided me with extensive spreadsheets detailing its FY 2010 budget.   With an enrollment of 452 students, the $3,229,381 budget for all expenses, including capital costs, is $7,145/student.  Excluding almost $600,000 in capital costs, the operating budget is about $2.6 million, or $5,842/student.

The average salary for the eleven teachers at Rocketship Mateo Sheedy is $60,660.  John Danner, CEO for a group of Rocketship schools, says the salaries are 10%-20% higher than for peers in the San Jose public school system. With benefits, total average compensation is $74,996.  The benefit package more closely reflects the real world, rather than the dreamland that is going to bankrupt so many traditional public school districts.

With that in mind, a November 7 news item includes the following:

“Gov. Jim Doyle made another push [on November 6] for creating mayoral control of Milwaukee Public Schools today. He said while an MPS governance change is not explicitly called for in the criteria released for Race to the Top, it was clear from [President] Obama’s address [in Wisconsin November 4] that such a change would be looked upon favorably in the application.

“’They’re going to look at if you can carry through on the reforms you say you’re going to do and to me that means a change in the governance of MPS,’ Doyle said.”

State Rep. Pedro Colón added that it was “explicitly clear” that when the president talked about drastic changes, he was referring to a governance change in MPS. “I think legislators who are thinking we don’t need to drastically change things in Milwaukee and we’re still going to get ‘Race to the Top’ dollars are greatly mistaken,” said Colón, who will be the lead Assembly author of the MPS governance change bill. (Inasmuch as the President did not say a governance change was needed, it remains unclear what Rep. Colon means by use of the word “explicitly.”)

So, what might a governance change involve? Here’s where things approach the “can’t make it up” stage. The lead sponsor of the idea, Sen. Lena Taylor, told colleagues that she will make the legislative proposal early in the week of November 9. Her memo to legislators can be found here.

It occurs to me is that opponents of a governance change are likely to be delighted by the hodgepodge described in Senator Taylor’s memo. The notion that this would enhance Wisconsin’s chance for an RTTT grant is dubious, assuming that Secretary Duncan means what he says in describing the criteria that will be used to review a state’s application.

A separate question: How would the mishmash described in Senator Taylor’s communication be perceived by prospective candidates for MPS superintendent, a position that will be vacant in the near future? What true reformer or change agent would consider this a promising opportunity?

WEAC, an affiliate of the National Education Association, is the state’s largest teachers’ union.

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story notes the WEAC role.  The article highlights the division of opinion on a bill that purports to allow student test scores to be used in evaluating teachers.  As I described in an earlier post this week, the actual language of the bill gives meaning to the old standby:  the devil’s in the details.  As one legislator quoted in the article explains, “This is a joke.”

Mainly reflecting WEAC’s opposition, the Legislature did not consider a measure that would transfer control of the Milwaukee Public Schools to the city’s mayor.

The legislative action followed President Obama’s visit to a Madison school earlier in the week.  The White House said the visit was intended to highlight positive steps being considered by the Legislature.  It remains to be seen whether Education Secretary Arne Duncan regards Wisconsin as worthy of receiving RTTT funds.

During a visit to Madison [November 4], President Barack Obama will highlight Wisconsin’s movement toward education reform and talk about how the $4.35 billion Race to the Top competition is spurring other states to do the same, a spokeswoman for the White House said this afternoon.

Melody Barnes, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said in a conference call that the president on Wednesday will ‘applaud positive steps forward’ on education reform in Wisconsin, such as the bills pending in the state Legislature that would remove the ban on using student achievement data to evaluate teachers, and another that would share student data between K-12 institutions and higher education.

What “positive steps forward” does one find in these pending Wisconsin bills?  Here, for example, is the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau analysis of Assembly Bill 533:

Current law directs school districts to administer certain standardized examinations to pupils enrolled in the 4th, 8th, and 10th grades. Current law prohibits a school board from using the results of the examinations to evaluate teacher performance; to discharge, suspend, or formally discipline a teacher; or as the reason for the non-renewal of a teacher’s contract.

This bill allows the results of the state-required standardized examinations and the standardized examinations required under the federal No Child Left Behind Act to be used for the evaluation of teacher performance if certain conditions are met. The school board must develop a teacher evaluation plan that includes a description of the evaluation process, multiple criteria in addition to examination results, the rationale for using examination results for evaluating teachers, and an explanation of how the school board intends to use the evaluations to improve pupil academic achievement. This bill also requires a school district to bargain collectively over the development of the teacher evaluation plan.

Bold, cutting edge stuff, huh?

And then there is Assembly Bill 534.  The analysis of this bill states:

This bill provides that if the state superintendent of public instruction determines that a school or school district is in need of improvement, the state superintendent may direct the school board to do one or more of the following in the school or school district:

1. Implement a new curriculum. 2. Implement a new instructional design, including expanded school hours, additional pupil supports and services, and individual learning plans for pupils. 3. Implement professional development programs focused on improving pupil academic achievement.  4. Make personnel changes that are consistent with applicable collective bargaining agreements. 5. Adopt accountability measures to monitor the school district’s finances or to monitor other interventions directed by the state superintendent. The bill directs the state superintendent to promulgate rules establishing

criteria and a procedure for determining whether a school or school district is in need

of improvement for the purpose of exercising this authority. The school board must

seek input from school district staff on implementing any of the above directives.

The bill also authorizes the state superintendent to withhold state aid from any school district that fails to comply to the state superintendent’s satisfaction with any of the above directives.

Wow.  Talk about a game-changer.

OK, so I am cynical.  One wonders: has Arne Duncan vetted these and other pending bills to determine if they represent the kind of change that will meet RTTT criteria? Presumably the answer is yes, or why would President Obama travel to Wisconsin for the purpose reported by the Journal Sentinel?

Keep in mind that throughout the NCLB era Wisconsin distinguished itself mainly as having some of the country’s least demanding proficiency criteria on state tests.  As I noted in an earlier post on this topic:

There is scant evidence that Wisconsin is poised to make the kind of decisions that represent real reform.  As education reporter Alan Borsuk wrote recently, “There it was again last week: A chart from a reputable national education organization that put Wisconsin at the top of the list, provided you were standing on your head.”

Borsuk continued, “The New Teacher Project…created a scorecard of the chances of each state to win some of the $4.35 billion to be given out by the U.S. Department of Education to places where there are bold, well structured plans to improve low-performing schools.  Wisconsin had the worst scorecard of all 51 candidates (including the District of Columbia).

Further, he noted, “A couple of years ago, Education Sector…rated the states on how they were dealing with the No Child Left Behind education law. Wisconsin was rated as doing the best job in the country of evading the consequences of the law. The organization called it the Pangloss index, after a fictional character who believed everything was in its best possible condition even when it wasn’t. We were the most Panglossian state, so to speak.”

As surely as the sun rises in the east, defenders of America’s traditional schools recite the litany of demographic reasons for the racial gap in academic achievement.  Their mantra is an article of faith among many reporters, elected officials, and supposed academics.  When a new round of test scores confirms the persistence of the gap, demography is trotted out as an antidote to accountability.

Not everywhere, however.  There is no room for the demography-is-destiny spin at San Jose’s Rocketship Mateo Sheedy Elementary School.  When its largely low-income and Hispanic student body gathers en masse every morning for the day’s “launch,” the last thing that comes to one’s mind is that these kids face insurmountable challenges and can’t succeed. They are smiling.  They are pumped.  They are disciplined.  They are ready to learn, and they will tell you so.

My wife and I had the opportunity to spend time at this inspirational school earlier this week.  The positive vibe was palpable.  Led by a corps of teachers — most with roots in Teach for America — and operating on a truly bare-bones operating budget of about $6,000 a year, this California charter school is achieving test scores that would be the envy of schools serving middle- and upper-income students.

From a press release issued last month, here’s how the school documents its achievement:

Rocketship Mateo Sheedy Elementary School, part of the Rocketship Education network, announced it earned a 926 API in 2009, an increase of 35 points over last year. Rocketship Mateo Sheedy serves low-income students in San Jose, nearly 73 percent of who are English Language Learners and 78 percent of who qualify for the Free and Reduced Lunch program.

These scores make Rocketship the highest performing low-income elementary school in San Jose and Santa Clara County, and 3rd in California.  In competing with individual schools in San Jose Unified where it is located, Rocketship ranked number 5 of 45 schools.  The four schools that had a higher API have student populations of less than 10 percent free and reduced meal counts of students tested compared to Rocketship’s 78 percent.

One of many noteworthy aspects of the school’s non-union operation is a merit-based compensation plan that provides a higher salary than earned by those in San Jose’s traditional public schools.  In this and many other ways, the Rocketship experience lays waste to the dreary conventional wisdom that permeates so much of the K-12 educational dialogue in America.

NB: An update to this post appears here.

In “Dick Durbin and D.C. School Vouchers” (editorial, September 30), you suggest that “Mr. Durbin deserves the benefit of the doubt” as to whether he is proceeding “in good faith” about reauthorization of the DC Scholarship Program.

A September 30 Washington Post news story (“More Oversight Urged For Voucher Schools”) provides detail as to the “good faith” intentions of Senator Durbin, who is quoted as follows: “We’ve got to demand the same standards [for voucher schools] as we do [for] our public and our charter schools.”

This is the same rationale used earlier this year by voucher opponents in the Wisconsin legislature, which cut funding for private schools in Milwaukee’s school choice program and enacted a public school-style regulatory regime for those schools.  School choice opponents long have understood that a regulatory barrage is the first step in the ultimate goal of killing such programs.

“I occasionally complain about the media’s education coverage, but I’ve applauded what I consider to be good work, too. Mainstream reporters have to be generalists, so it’s unfair to blame them for lack of depth into the many and varied arcane topics some of us deal with – including, of course, labor.”

I could not disagree more with the notion that it’s unfair to blame education reporters for lack of depth in covering labor issues.  These are the issues that drive K-12 school budgets and day-to-day operations.  If education reporters aren’t expected to have depth in their reporting of labor and collective bargaining, in what areas are they expected to have expertise?

Incidentally, Mike Antonucci’s observations on this topic were spurred by a Mike Petrilli piece, as he describes below:

“In a dwindling newspaper industry, there is a lot of soul-searching going on, but it’s nice to see someone take on the status of education reporting specifically. Michael Petrilli wrote a story headlined “Disappearing Ink” for Education Next that is really worth your time.”

While Antonucci is as informed as anyone on these matters, it discourages me to see him effectively raising the white flag in terms of what we can expect from education reporters.

Why would this be the case?  No mystery, really.  Education reporters, even at elite newspapers, rarely provide solid background information about school spending, the kind of contextual information that a much smaller audience gets from articles by scholars such as William Howell, Martin West, Paul Peterson, Rick Hanushek, and others. A case in point is Sam Dillon’s New York Times piece, “Schools Aided by Stimulus Money Still Facing Cuts,” which appeared on Labor Day.

Dillon writes, rather breathlessly, “Children are returning to classrooms across the nation during one of the most tumultuous periods in American education…”

Wow.  “One of the most tumultuous periods in American education…”?   Dillon justifies this claim by saying (emphasis added) that “many thousands of teachers and other school workers — no one yet knows how many — were laid off in dozens of states because of plummeting state and local revenue.  Many were hired back, thanks in part to $100 billion in federal stimulus money…In those [states] where budget deficits have been manageable, stimulus money largely replaced plunging taxpayer revenues for schools.”

Dillon’s piece thus echoes a long-running media template, i.e., schools face fiscal shortfalls, tight budgets, dwindling resources, blah, blah, blah, blah.  However, apart from isolated periods when real growth has been limited, over time the data are clear:  K-12 schools have continually received major infusions of new public funds.  Neither Dillon nor most of his colleagues on the education beat explain to readers that budget constraints in any given year pale when compared to the overall trend of increasing school spending.  Thus, it has become conventional wisdom among mainstream Americans that K-12 schools are underfinanced.

Context is everything.  What is omitted from articles like Dillon’s often is just as important as what is provided.

Apart from whatever platitudes are dispensed to American students, the President’s real message on education reform will be delivered early next year, when Education Secretary Arne Duncan makes the first round of Race to the Top grants.  Earlier this summer, the President and Secretary Duncan declared,  “This competition will not be based on politics, ideology, or the preferences of a particular interest group. Instead, it will be based on a simple principle—whether a state is ready to do what works.”

I admit to a level of cynicism, fueled by nearly three decades of lofty and ultimately unproductive rhetoric since A Nation At Risk.

How will we know if the President and Secretary Duncan mean business?

A key early test will come from Wisconsin, where Milwaukee’s mayor and the state’s governor have said the prospect of a federal aid windfall should provide a major incentive for approval of legislation allowing a mayoral takeover of the city’s public schools.  The Mayor’s own words raise a real chicken or egg question:

“U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has stated clearly that he believes mayoral governance is essential to reform. This is not only true for the $4 billion in Race to the Top funds but likely will continue to be true for future federal education dollars.”

Does this mean the mayor (and governor) think mayoral control is key, or are they merely attempting to following marching orders from Washington D.C.?  Both Mayor Barrett and Governor Doyle are well into their second four-year terms of office.  Why haven’t they moved on this issue sooner?

There is scant evidence that Wisconsin is poised to make the kind of decisions that represent real reform.  As education reporter Alan Borsuk wrote recently, “There it was again last week: A chart from a reputable national education organization that put Wisconsin at the top of the list, provided you were standing on your head.”

Borsuk continued, “The New Teacher Project…created a scorecard of the chances of each state to win some of the $4.35 billion to be given out by the U.S. Department of Education to places where there are bold, well structured plans to improve low-performing schools.  Wisconsin had the worst scorecard of all 51 candidates (including the District of Columbia).”

Further, he noted, “A couple of years ago, Education Sector…rated the states on how they were dealing with the No Child Left Behind education law. Wisconsin was rated as doing the best job in the country of evading the consequences of the law. The organization called it the Pangloss index, after a fictional character who believed everything was in its best possible condition even when it wasn’t. We were the most Panglossian state, so to speak.”

The basic message from Mayor Barrett and Governor Doyle?  Basically, “never mind.”  There are big bucks on the table.  The mayor and governor want state legislators to produce evidence in the next few weeks that Wisconsin is eager and ready to do what it has failed miserably at.

If Secretary Duncan somehow concludes that Wisconsin is ready to partake in the race to the top, it will be an ominous sign that he does not mean business.  Surely other states will offer a more compelling opportunity.

Two decades ago, when Wisconsin’s Legislature debated the proposed Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, opponents said there was no evidence that a voucher program would increase academic achievement.  Of course, as there were no sustained U.S. voucher programs to evaluate at the time, that narrow claim was correct.

Count me among those who thought that credible research, once conducted, would be acknowledged and reported in the media, and would thus influence the debate.  However, as it turns out, this hope reflected a stunning naiveté regarding educational research, academic politics, and journalism.

As for research, schools of education have been loath to explore, much less acknowledge, any potential benefit from a policy opposed by public schools and teacher unions.  Enterprising economists and political scientists largely have filled the vacuum.  A number of scholars, including some who risked not attaining tenure, have evaluated voucher programs and identified gains for students receiving expanded educational options.  Much of this research is summarized in this law review article by Patrick Wolf.  As noted in the article, many studies rely on rigorous, randomized treatment and control group comparisons.  In “Lost Opportunities,” published by Education Next last week, Wolf supplements this with important evidence from the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Acknowledging these studies, it is notable that the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice — a body affiliated with the National Education Association — has observed:   “Voucher studies, generally of high quality, indicate a slightly positive impact, particularly for African American students.”  (See the Center’s 2008 report on school choice here.)

In addition to academic gains for students in some voucher programs, other scholars have identified benefits among public schools as a result of such programs.  Still other researchers with national credentials report that low-income voucher students in Milwaukee graduate from high schools at higher rates than do public school students.

What of this has been communicated to the general public?  Not much. Mainstream education reporters — the general public’s principal source of information about such matters — are not well versed in social science research methodology.  Further, they spend considerable time on their beat in an echo chamber, interacting with public school officials and others who are skeptical about parental choice programs. These factors help explain why many in the news media minimize — and sometimes entirely ignore — the positive findings that have survived close academic scrutiny.  As a consequence, most newspaper readers simply are unaware of the research.

A particularly egregious illustration is the outdated and strikingly incomplete “A Reporter’s Guide To Privatization,” published in 2005 by the Education Writers of America (EWA). Its prejudicial tenor often apes the rhetoric of teachers unions and other opponents of education vouchers.

According to the report, “This guide is aimed at helping journalists better understand the emerging issues” associated with “privatization” of instruction.  To illustrate such “emerging issues,” the report lists “[s]afeguarding public money” and notes that “[b]illions of tax dollars will be spent on school privatization.”  Elsewhere it says (emphasis added), “School choice and privatization have been sold…as a way to force bureaucratic school systems to improve through competition.  Journalists must carefully track the effect on school districts.  Whether changes from competition force more efficient schools systems or create chaos is a key concern.”

These and other introductory comments foreshadow the rest of the report.  For example, a list of resources says “good basic info and policy statements” on vouchers are available from the People for the American Way, a group that relies in part on teacher union financial support and that stridently opposes parental choice programs.

More distressingly, under “studies” about educational vouchers, a grand total of four entries are listed.  The list omits literally dozens of credible studies, many that have appeared in respected scholarly journals.  Notwithstanding such research, the EWA report flatly states, “There is (sic) little data on effectiveness.”  Yet in the same year the EWA guide was published, Gerard Robinson, then a senior fellow at Marquette University’s Institute for the Transformation of Learning, summarized 42 studies from more than a decade of research involving educational voucher programs.   The references cited by Robinson mainly involve peer-reviewed research, by recognized scholars, that had appeared in prestigious journals.

Earlier, respected scholars had reached conclusions similar to Robinson’s.

In 2001, Tom Loveless, then director of the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy, wrote the following, based on then-existing research, in the Brown Center Report on American Education: “Although controversial, research generally shows positive effects for students using vouchers to attend private schools.”

In 2003, the National Working Commission on Choice in K-12 Education issued a separate report (also through Brookings).  The Commission, chaired by Dr. Paul Hill of the University of Washington, carefully reviewed the research on the impact of school choice on student achievement and included in its report the following statement: “The most rigorous school choice evaluations that used random assignment…found that academic gains from vouchers were largely limited to the African-American students in their studies.”

So, twenty years after the enactment of Milwaukee’s program, a growing body of research shows that students receiving vouchers do as well and often better than their peers in public schools and at a fraction of the taxpayer cost.  Yet much conventional wisdom defines the results as “mixed.”  Compared to what?  What other K-12 educational policy has been subject to comparable randomized experiments?  What other policy has produced comparable gains for African American students at a fraction of the cost of traditional public schools?  What does the failure to acknowledge the school choice research say about the supposed commitment to close the education gap?

Among historically united Milwaukee school choice supporters, opinion varies sharply on the most sweeping regulatory changes in the program’s history, which were enacted in July, described here. Among many new requirements, private schools will need to administer Wisconsin’s state-certified criterion reference tests, derided by independent experts as having some of the country’s least demanding proficiency standards.  A controversial change that is now being tested in court gives an organization at Marquette University, a private college, the right to block schools seeking to enter the program.

Some believe that increased “accountability” and “transparency” will raise the quality of private schools participating in the twenty-year old Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP).  Others dispute the wisdom of applying an extensive regulatory regime — one that has been ineffective in the public school arena  — to private schools receiving half the taxpayer support provided to Milwaukee’s public schools.

Largely lost in the discussion of the new regulations has been any recognition of the requirements for private schools in the program that existed prior to this year’s changes.

Under legislation enacted prior to this year, private schools have had to obtain independent accreditation within three years of joining the MPCP.  They have had to follow detailed “sound fiscal practices” established by the state and submit annual independent financial audits.  They also have had to meet state standards for financial viability and show that their facilities meet health and safety standards applicable to public schools.  Schools also have had to administer standardized tests to voucher students.  They report test scores to the University of Arkansas’s School Choice Demonstration Program, which is conducting a longitudinal evaluation of the MPCP.  Also part of the longitudinal study, a matched sample of voucher and Milwaukee Public Schools students are taking the same tests to produce a sound comparison.

These requirements have had a notable impact.  Since 2003, 30 schools have been removed from the program for failing to meet one or more of these standards.  Another 111 applicants have been denied entry to the program.  Finally, several schools are not expected to meet the three-year accreditation deadline and will lose eligibility to remain in the program.

The 2008 general elections provided the impetus for the changes enacted this year.  Opponents of the Milwaukee program now control the legislative and executive branches of Wisconsin state government.